[Milton-L] Nude or Naked?

Horace Jeffery Hodges jefferyhodges at yahoo.com
Sun Jul 24 17:44:40 EDT 2011


Are Milton's unfallen angels unclothed? They wear armor, it seems. Do they wear 
other garments?

Jeffery Hodges



________________________________
From: Salwa Khoddam <skhoddam at cox.net>
To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 6:30:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Nude or Naked?


Dear Miltonists,
I would like to clarify that  I was using"naked" in the literal sense as 
"unclothed" as was used in this thread.  Also, I think it is not a semantically 
appropriate adjective that goes with Milton's angels, given the description that 
we have of them in Book 8 of Pl.  They can't be "naked" because they can't be 
"clothed." Only fallen angels like Satan and his crew can be described as 
"clothed" or "naked" because they have lost, and are in the processing of 
losing, their celestial form.
From my own experience, the division between pre- and postlapsarian in Milton's 
cosmos (i.e. post and prelapsarian humans, beasts, Nature, experiences such as 
love)
makes it confusing for readers.  Marital love, or friendship, even divine love, 
is different after the fall.  So to read Eve's behavior in Book 4 as 
"titillating" or "arousing" seems an inappropriate interpretation given that 
love (physical / spiritual) is an integral part of humans and, in its highest 
form before the fall, cannot be degraded to "pornography" or "lust." So, Eve's 
behavior is the quintessential behavior of the Feminine. Of course, we fallen 
creatures can only think of everything from a postlapsarian viewpoint and so we 
see things that are not there in the text and find it hard to see what is 
there.  It is much easier with Dante:  He makes a clear distinction between the 
human world (albeit mostly of sin) vs. Heaven.  They are as remote from each 
other as possible.  In his Heaven angels are specks of light, dancing around God 
in circles, the closer to Him the brighter they become.  No worry about their 
being "naked" or not, because their world is different from ours. They are like 
mirrors reflecting God's light. Yes, we can apply  "naked" to human emotions, 
but not to angels, at least from Milton's view.
Salwa
 
Salwa Khoddam, Ph.D.
Professor of English, Emerita
Oklahoma City University
2501 N. Blackwelder
OKC, OK  73106
Phone:  405-208-5127
Email:  skhoddam at cox.net
----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Horace Jeffery Hodges 
>To: John Milton Discussion List 
>Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Nude or Naked?
>
>
>Thanks for the response, which ought to generate more discussion . . .
>
>By the way, I'm "Jeffery."
>
>Jeffery Hodges
>
>
>
________________________________
From: "Watt, James" <jwatt at butler.edu>
>To: John Milton Discussion List <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
>Sent: Mon, July 25, 2011 4:57:33 AM
>Subject: RE: [Milton-L] Nude or Naked?
>
>Jeffrey:
>
>nude means aesthetic, not erotic
>naked means erotic, not aesthetic
>just as making love means something coextensive
>and fucking means something lonely, but intensive.
>
>Even as most of this discussion of Milton's eroticism
>has been about as pertinent as [Henry] Miller's aestheticism...
>
>...but scholars are human, too and, like their great archetype, are always 
>looking up
>and then fleeing, murmuring; and with them flee the shades of night. (4:1013ff) 
>I
>wanted to add 'scattering footnotes,' but better sense prevailed.
>
>jim watt
>________________________________
>From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] 
>on behalf of Horace Jeffery Hodges [jefferyhodges at yahoo.com]
>Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:37 PM
>To: John Milton Discussion List
>Subject: [Milton-L] Nude or Naked?
>
>
>Given our discussion of late, I found this interesting:
>
>
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/arts/lucian-freud-adept-portraiture-artist-dies-at-88.html
>
>
>
>
>"Lucian Freud, Figurative Painter Who Redefined Portraiture, Is Dead at 88"
>
>
>
>William Grimes, New York Times (July 11, 2011)
>
>
>
>This observation is particularly apt:
>
>
>
>"His female subjects in particular seemed not just nude but obtrusively naked."
>
>
>
>Is this a meaningless distinction? Should Grimes have written:
>
>
>
>"His female subjects in particular seemed not just nude but obtrusively nude."
>
>
>
>Or:
>
>
>
>"His female subjects in particular seemed not just naked but obtrusively 
naked."
>
>
>
>Or do we need a terminological distinction here to express more starkly what is 
>meant?
>
>
>
>Jeffery Hodges
>
>_______________________________________________
>Milton-L mailing list
>Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
>Manage your list membership and access list archives at 
>http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
>Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
________________________________
_______________________________________________
>Milton-L mailing list
>Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
>Manage your list membership and access list archives at 
>http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
>Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20110724/c335db2f/attachment.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list